DOJ-OGR-00005576.jpg
656 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
656 KB
Summary
This legal document is a motion filed by the Government on October 29, 2021, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. The Government asks the Court to establish the conditions under which it can introduce prior consistent statements from its witnesses, particularly if the defense attacks their credibility in opening statements or cross-examination. The motion cites Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the precedent set in United States v. Purcell to support its arguments.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Victims | Victims |
Mentioned as individuals whose privacy and dignity the Government seeks to protect, and who will testify about being ...
|
| defendant | Defendant |
The party whose rights the defense has allegedly failed to identify as being burdened by the Government's requested o...
|
| Purcell | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196-97 (2d Cir. 2020)'.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Government | Government agency |
The prosecuting party in the case, seeking court orders and moving to admit evidence.
|
| The Court | Judicial body |
The entity being asked to grant a motion and resolve litigation regarding witness statements.
|
| United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Judicial body |
Cited as '2d Cir.' in the case precedent United States v. Purcell.
|
Timeline (3 events)
The Government moved in limine to admit prior consistent statements of its witnesses pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal disagreement between the Government (prosecution) and the defense regarding the rules of evidence and the admissibility of witness statements for an upcoming trial.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,895 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 383 Filed 10/29/21 Page 22 of 40
The Government is seeking an order issued in many other cases to protect the privacy and dignity of Minor Victims who will take the stand and testify about being sexually abused. The defense has failed to carry its burden of identifying any right of the defendant that is burdened by such an order. The Court should grant the motion.
II. The Court Should Resolve Litigation Related to Prior Consistent Statements at the Appropriate Time
The Government has moved in limine to admit prior consistent statements of its witnesses pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (See Gov’t Mot. Section II). The Government briefed this issue in advance in order to notify the Court that the Government intends to offer evidence of prior consistent statements, and to provide briefing on the relevant law. Because the Government cannot fully anticipate the defense’s opening arguments or lines of cross-examination regarding the credibility of witnesses it will call at trial, and the defense has not elaborated on them in its brief, the Government cannot identify prior consistent statements it will offer in response. Accordingly, the Government does not seek a decision on prior consistent statements at this time.
In their brief, the defense recites the applicable law, largely in agreement with the Government’s view. The Government notes two points with respect to that discussion. First, it is plainly proper to offer prior consistent statements to rebut a purported inconsistency between the witness’s trial testimony and an earlier statement. See United States v. Purcell, 967 F.3d 159, 196-97 (2d Cir. 2020). Second, it is also plainly proper for the Government to begin offering prior consistent statements if the defense attacks witness credibility in its opening statement, and the
21
DOJ-OGR-00005576
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document